Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those

Tha amendment is linked to the Necessary and Proper Clause. As stated, the Federalists argued a bill of rights would be dangerous, because by listing various exceptions to powers not granted, you would imply the government had those powers. In other words, you would make the powers seem far more expansive than they actually were.

The Ninth Amendment was simply a response to that. It was not a license to judges to make up new rights. It does not add any right; it merely prevents the bill of rights from being taken to distort federal power.

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those

In order to understand the Ninth Amendment, one must first determine what a "right" is. As far as the Constitution is concerned, a right is nothing more than an exception to the government's powers.

Thus, when introducing the Bill of Rights on the floor of the House of Representatives, James Madison said, "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration" (emphasis added). Madison's statement shows quite clearly that, as far as the Bill of Rights was concerned, "rights" and "exceptions to the grant of power" were synonymous.

Many feared that, if only a few exceptions to the grant of power were enumerated, then the federal government might expand its powers in areas not specifically excepted. For example, someone might have claimed, "The federal government may regulate intrastate commerce, because nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibits it from doing so." It is precisely this line of reasoning that the Ninth Amendment precludes.

It is apparent from history and from the text itself that the Ninth Amendment does nothing more than limit the federal government to its enumerated powers. As Jfern's own link suggests, "the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement."

On its own, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, as John Marshall made clear in Barron v. Baltimore. It extends to the states only by virtue of the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yet, by their very nature, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments cannot apply to the states, even by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both of these amendments were meant to chain the federal government to its enumerated powers; naturally, such a consideration does not arise with regard to the states.

The original interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is in accord with the view that the term "privileges or immunities" only encompassed the first eight amendments to the Constitution. For example, the House sponsor of the amendment (John Bingham) argued in a debate in 1871:

"[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are defined in the [first] eight articles of amendment, ... were not limitations on the power of the States before the fourteenth amendment made them limitations."

Other speeches from the same time period show a similar understanding of the privileges or immunities clause.

Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Ninth Amendment authorizes judges to strike down laws that they dislike. For every liberal activist who claims that there is a constitutional right to privacy, there is a conservative activist who claims that there is a constitutional liberty of contract. For every Griswold v. Connecticut, there is a Lochner v. New York.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

As any good logician would tell you, the voter registration in the city where the University is happens to be heavily Democratic does not mean that the logicians who work in the graduate program are also Democratic.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

As any good logician would tell you, the voter registration in the city where the University is happens to be heavily Democratic does not mean that the logicians who work in the graduate program are also Democratic.

pwned

Berkeley voted 90% Kerry, 6.5% Bush. Are you going to tell me that there are more Republicans than Democrats in the #1 logic program in the country?

You're the one who claimed that all of the good logicians aren't Democrats. Busted.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

As any good logician would tell you, the voter registration in the city where the University is happens to be heavily Democratic does not mean that the logicians who work in the graduate program are also Democratic.

pwned

Berkeley voted 90% Kerry, 6.5% Bush. Are you going to tell me that there are more Republicans than Democrats in the #1 logic program in the country?

You're the one who claimed that all of the good logicians aren't Democrats. Busted.

Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians. The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is. Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid. Its the question of whether you have proven you hypothesis to the point of being a fact that I think you've failed to do.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist, so I was obviously (as I've said twice now) being sarcastic in my remarks. But is interesting that when I say something so blatantly hyperbolic, you're still unable to win the debate on the merits.

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one. Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

As any good logician would tell you, the voter registration in the city where the University is happens to be heavily Democratic does not mean that the logicians who work in the graduate program are also Democratic.

pwned

Berkeley voted 90% Kerry, 6.5% Bush. Are you going to tell me that there are more Republicans than Democrats in the #1 logic program in the country?

You're the one who claimed that all of the good logicians aren't Democrats. Busted.

Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians. The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is. Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid. Its the question of whether you have proven you hypothesis to the point of being a fact that I think you've failed to do.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist, so I was obviously (as I've said twice now) being sarcastic in my remarks. But is interesting that when I say something so blatantly hyperbolic, you're still unable to win the debate on the merits.

My god, you're actually trying to argue that logicians at Berkeley aren't Democrats.Anyways, I've heard 2 Professors in the logic program make anti-Bush comments to 0 who made any other political comments, so you are really just being a stupid partisan hack here.

In addition I found a 3rd Professor, John Steel, who gave $250 to the DNC.

You are the one who made the outrageous claim that no good logicians are Democrats. Your partisan hack ass has been owned. STFU.